Fiscal conservative ,Social Progressive..

[Duke Mu]

I don't get this mantra. You either fund programs for Food , Healthcare,Housing Teacher and other Civil Servants pay-or you don't. And when you don't it has real consequences. I understand folks not liking taxes-but don't pretend you are a Social Progressive if you vote for low taxes at any level of gov't

Wait - I thought responsibility and freedom could work together.

This is the way.

 

[Duke Mu]

I'll read it again, but I didn't really get causation. How can they really show causation for this case?

And your first sentence is weird. You state that it is about causation, then sum it up as correlation.

I just don't see how you can claim causation. Even with a control group, there would be so many other factors.

Yeah, the IP was not what I thought it was going to be.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I'll read it again, but I didn't really get causation. How can they really show causation for this case?

And your first sentence is weird. You state that it is about causation, then sum it up as correlation.

I just don't see how you can claim causation. Even with a control group, there would be so many other factors.

Let me try again. There are numerous other studies that have shown a correlation with the kids needing benefits as adults when their parents get benefits. In other words, if your parents got government assistance, you were more likely to need assistance. But no one could say if the government assistance for the parents contributed to that outcome or not.

This completely different study, about people in Norway, was able to show causation because there was a control group along with an experimental group, where poor people were randomly assigned, and showed different outcomes for the adult children of those parents. The authors concluded that government assistance to parents was causal in a statistically significant way, for their kids getting on government assistance as adults.

 

[SmilingJack]

Let me try again. There are numerous other studies that have shown a correlation with the kids needing benefits as adults when their parents get benefits. In other words, if your parents got government assistance, you were more likely to need assistance. But no one could say if the government assistance for the parents contributed to that outcome or not.

This completely different study, about people in the Netherlands, was able to show causation because there was a control group along with an experimental group, where poor people were randomly assigned, and showed different outcomes for the adult children of those parents. The authors concluded that government assistance to parents was causal in a statistically significant way, for their kids getting on government assistance as adults.

Dude give it up and let go? Black hand of death et al from the grave. People love each other so much more than they hate each other? What happened to you guys?

 

[finesse]

Let me try again. There are numerous other studies that have shown a correlation with the kids needing benefits as adults when their parents get benefits. In other words, if your parents got government assistance, you were more likely to need assistance. But no one could say if the government assistance for the parents contributed to that outcome or not.

This completely different study, about people in Norway, was able to show causation because there was a control group along with an experimental group, where poor people were randomly assigned, and showed different outcomes for the adult children of those parents. The authors concluded that government assistance to parents was causal in a statistically significant way, for their kids getting on government assistance as adults.

What? They really think that a family so poor that they need assistance was unable to build up enough of a nest egg to get their children an Ivy League education or a loan to start a business? Incredible deduction, Sherlock. I'm sure that they learned from their parents how to do that before they got that poor. I don't know why they don't do better with the example of their families extending back for generations.

Wonder how many of those in Norway were that poor because the state kept their family from having access to much in the way of education and much of anything else for four or five generations?

 

[gtyellowjacket]

What? They really think that a family so poor that they need assistance was unable to build up enough of a nest egg to get their children an Ivy League education or a loan to start a business? Incredible deduction, Sherlock. I'm sure that they learned from their parents how to do that before they got that poor. I don't know why they don't do better with the example of their families extending back for generations.

Wonder how many of those in Norway were that poor because the state kept their family from having access to much in the way of education and much of anything else for four or five generations?

I am not following your argument. What are you saying?

 

[finesse]

I am not following your argument. What are you saying?

Public assistance does not create generational wealth. The children aren't going to go to summer camp. They aren't going to get tutoring for college entrance exams. They don't have anyone in their immediate family who can teach them what it takes to succeed. Even if they get into college and have a scholarship, they get one chance, most likely. They can't transfer. They probably can't drop out and get a new start later. That's with a success story.

If they grow up with abusive and addictive parents, what do you give their chances?

How old are you? It's like you have no understanding of anything except some very basic book knowledge. If this is just simple mendacity, you do you and your cause a great disservice. You discredit your entire agenda.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Public assistance does not create generational wealth. The children aren't going to go to summer camp. They aren't going to get tutoring for college entrance exams. They don't have anyone in their immediate family who can teach them what it takes to succeed. Even if they get into college and have a scholarship, they get one chance, most likely. They can't transfer. They probably can drop out and get a new start late. That's with a success story.

If they grow up with abusive and addictive parents, what to you give their chances?

How old are you? It's like you have no understanding of anything except some very basic book knowledge. If this is just simple mendacity, you do you and your cause a great disservice. You discredit your entire agenda.

That is not at all what these researchers are arguing. There is nothing about generational wealth. They are arguing that government welfare for parents leads to the kids being more likely to have government assistance as adults. Conversely people that don't get government assistance, despite having similar economic circumstances ie. no summer camps, etc., are less likely to get government assistance as adults. Therefore, there is a causal link between government assistance to parents leading to government assistance to their kids.

 

[finesse]

That is not at all what these researchers are arguing. There is nothing about generational wealth. They are arguing that government welfare for parents leads to the kids being more likely to have government assistance as adults. Conversely people that don't get government assistance, despite having similar economic circumstances ie. no summer camps, etc., are less likely to get government assistance as adults. Therefore, there is a causal link between government assistance to parents leading to government assistance to their kids.

And you are basing this on the wrong country with a different population demographic and a hugely different social history. Literally anything about behavior in Norway has jack to do with culture in America.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

And you are basing this on the wrong country with a different population demographic and a hugely different social history. Literally anything about behavior in Norway has jack to do with culture in America.

It wasn't my study. Tell that to the researchers including a well regarded economist from the University of Chicago. Are you a well regarded economist from the school that has produced more Nobel Prize winners than any other American University by any chance?

 

[finesse]

It wasn't my study. Tell that to the researchers including a well regarded economist from the University of Chicago. Are you a well regarded economist from the school that has produced more Nobel Prize winners than any other American University by any chance?

Did I miss the link to this study? Did they apply it to the entirely different circumstance in the US or did you do that?

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Did I miss the link to this study? Did they apply it to the entirely different circumstance in the US or did you do that?

Yes, you missed it. They linked the study in the article.

You also missed this quote:

"...Mogstad said it is highly relevant to policymakers in Norway and the United States, because disability insurance is now one of the largest transfer programs in most industrialized countries."

​

 

[finesse]

Yes, you missed it. They linked the study in the article.

You also missed this quote:

"...Mogstad said it is highly relevant to policymakers in Norway and the United States, because disability insurance is now one of the largest transfer programs in most industrialized countries."

When did this become about disability insurance. Sounds a lot like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

A cursory look at him got me this quote which hints at a greatly different stance on help for children.


Many developed countries are currently considering a move toward subsidized, widely accessible child care or preschool. However, studies on how large-scale provision of child care affects child development are scarce, and focused on short-run outcomes. We analyze a large-scale expansion of subsidized child care in Norway, addressing the impact on children's long-run outcomes. Our precise and robust difference-in-differences estimates show that subsidized child care had strong positive effects on children's educational attainment and labor market participation, and also reduced welfare dependency. Subsample analyses indicate that girls and children with low-educated mothers benefit the most from child care. (JEL J13, J16)

Sure seems like poverty and intergenerational damage are factors to him.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

When did this become about disability insurance. Sounds a lot like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

A cursory look at him got me this quote which hints at a greatly different stance on help for children.


Many developed countries are currently considering a move toward subsidized, widely accessible child care or preschool. However, studies on how large-scale provision of child care affects child development are scarce, and focused on short-run outcomes. We analyze a large-scale expansion of subsidized child care in Norway, addressing the impact on children's long-run outcomes. Our precise and robust difference-in-differences estimates show that subsidized child care had strong positive effects on children's educational attainment and labor market participation, and also reduced welfare dependency. Subsample analyses indicate that girls and children with low-educated mothers benefit the most from child care. (JEL J13, J16)

Sure seems like poverty and intergenerational damage are factors to him.

Disability insurance is a form of welfare as the study defines it.

And yes. The completely different study you found about a different program with a different data set provided different conclusions. He would likely be the first to say that some social welfare programs are effective while others, although well-intentioned, are ineffective or counterproductive. It's an opinion I happen to share.

It seems that he is able to look at data without preconceived biases. May you profit from his example.

 

[finesse]

Disability insurance is a form of welfare as the study defines it.

And yes. The completely different study you found about a different program with a different data set provided different conclusions. He would likely be the first to say that some social welfare programs are effective while others, although well-intentioned, are ineffective or counterproductive. It's an opinion I happen to share.

It seems that he is able to look at data without preconceived biases. May you profit from his example.

You go first.

Yeah, I found one relevant to children and poverty, not adults and injury, so I'm the one off base. Go for it, guy.

How about providing a direct link to your study. I don't feel like wading through to find the article to find the link to the study you're abusing.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

You go first.

Yeah, I found one relevant to children and poverty, not adults and injury, so I'm the one off base. Go for it, guy.

How about providing a direct link to your study. I don't feel like wading through to find the article to find the link to the study you're abusing.

Fourth paragraph. First sentence.

https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/129/4/1711/1852847?redirectedFrom=fulltext

 

[finesse]

Since I still can't access it, I can't comment but it sure doesn't seem relevant to children in America or general welfare much at all in the least from the introduction that is accessible. This seems to be a subgroup of people whose disability claims were originally declined. What am I missing that makes this relevant in the slightest.

 

[StrangePackage]

I agree with your example of school lunch.

There's a lot to discuss there.

Like the stigma of a qualification line and the parents that whine about a "rich" kid getting an unneeded benefit. These miss the forest for the trees in not seeing the benefits of a universal process being less costly.

I do agree with efficiencies, but we have to understand the definition in many cases.

This is sort of the essence of a large part of the modern conservative movement.

They tend to focus on the possibility of abuse over evidence of effectiveness. Some 42 million Americans receive SNAP benefits. But isolated stories of people on welfare buying steaks and lobster crop up and then there's a predictable backlash from deeply stupid people to cut these benefits- Project 2025 is rife with examples.

Someone, somewhere, might abuse a system, so to be safe we should just make it much harder to access the system, and ignore the suffering of those who have needs that won't be met.

 

[mpaer]

This is sort of the essence of a large part of the modern conservative movement.

Someone, somewhere, might abuse a system, so to be safe we should just make it much harder to access the system, and ignore the suffering of those who have needs that won't be met.

There are Docs-Health Care systems -that abuse Medicare So yea-lets get rid of it

 

[UNCatTech]

This is sort of the essence of a large part of the modern conservative movement.

They tend to focus on the possibility of abuse over evidence of effectiveness. Some 42 million Americans receive SNAP benefits. But isolated stories of people on welfare buying steaks and lobster crop up and then there's a predictable backlash from deeply stupid people to cut these benefits- Project 2025 is rife with examples.

Someone, somewhere, might abuse a system, so to be safe we should just make it much harder to access the system, and ignore the suffering of those who have needs that won't be met.

Exactly. Everything they see on the news is rampant and not an outlier.

Another example is the response to vaccinations. I believe the COVID vaccine where there was a blood clot issue was 1 in a million people experienced an issue. Yet they acted as if it were 99.9% and the vaccines needed to be recalled.